OOB 024 -- US Army -- M1A2 Abrams

[SGTGunn]

Hi,

As a former M1 Abrams crewman (I've been a driver, gunner and commander) I can state quite unequivocally that the Abrams has no difficulty accurately engaging moving targets while on the move. The current Tank Table VIII (M1 individual crew qualification table) includes engaging moving and evasive targets while on the move at ranges in excess of 1500m. For example - to score 100% on an engagement against a moving & evasive tank @ 1700m, a stationary APC at 1100m and moving troops at 500m - while the M1 is moving, the crew must engage and achieve a 1st round hits on all three targets in 8 seconds or less per target for M1A1 and 6 seconds or less per target with the M1A2 (obscuration time is deducted).

Now, I'm not saying that's easy - and certainly not every crew gets 100% on every engagement like this - but it happens ,and most crews can pull off 90%+ pretty regularly (8 & 11 seconds respectively). I've done it a few times myself - I've never shot a perfect table VIII (that's 10 different engagements each 100%)I've got a few in the 900s.

Adrian

[DRG]

SGTGunn

It's always nice to hear from someone who has "been there, done that" It's a refreshing change from those with opinions based on books and the internet.

Would you care to comment on the top armour protection issue brought up earlier in this thread ? I am quite willing to alter OOB unit specs from what we have now when presented with good information and information from someone who has actually climbed in and out of one on a regular basis is an always welcome addition.

FYI the Challenger 2 top armour is also high. It may be too high......or not....... same as the numbers for the later Abrams so if their are any Chally 2 crewmen out there it would be nice to hear from you as well

Don

[SGTGunn]

Believe it or not, in my 4 years on the M1 I never once saw any published specs on armor thickness - presumably they were/are classified above my level. That being said, it's pretty easy, standing in the loaders hatch, to see how thick the turret roof armor is - which is to say not very. 40mm seems about right to me, though it may have actually been thinner. When the M1 was designed, there was no top attack ATGM threat, so I honestly don't think roof armor was a serious consideration. Just thick enough to keep out artillery I suspect. Sorry I don't have a more definitive answer.

Adrian

[DRG]

Any spall liners or anything "Kevlarish" on the inside turret roof?

You say "M1" are you specifically refering to the early Abrams or would this also include experience with the later models? The specs in the game from a "M1 Abrams" is steel 5 which matches pretty close to your eyeball observation. Later models in the game show more protection so is your experience mostly with the early versions ?



Don

[SGTGunn]

Nope, no spall liners or such, just bare steel.

My experience is with the M1-IP, and the M1A1(Heavy). The M1A2 was out when I was a tanker, but it was still new, and only 4th ID had them. The roof armor thickness on the M1-IP, M1A1 and M1A1 (Heavy) are identical. I'm pretty sure it's the same for the M1A2 and M1A2 SEP as well, unless they have added some external appliqué armor since the start of OIF (offhand I haven't seen any pictures that would seem to indicate they have). All M1 model's turrets are basically structurally identical. The changes to the armor package are all "internal" in that they don't alter the dimensions or basic structure of the tank. The A1 & A2 models have a bigger gun, so there are changes to the mount, the coax ammo box and the main gun ammo storage, but since the tank was designed from the outset to take the 120mm gun, there are no major changes to the turret itself. The A2 adds the CITV in front of the loaders hatch and changes the commanders cupola and .50 cal mount, but that's about the extant of the major differences.